Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to all my colleagues here today for their participation in this debate. I think some really cogent points were brought forward. Certainly, with the major progress we’ve made on devolution, the development of the MVRMA land claims legislation, that was definitely a big achievement and it was noted that it also brings a big responsibility, and to some degree, therefore, this is a test, and it calls for leadership to call a public forum, so I appreciated that point.

I heard several Members concerned about what is industry thinking. What messages are we sending to industry? My response to that is: What about the public? What messages are we sending to the public?

The timing is appropriate here, as has been brought out several times. The Premier likes to highlight how desperate industry is. The richest corporations in the world, they’re going to leave and they really need to be here. I think the point is that there is a lull. They’re pulling out for a while. That’s not atypical. The boom and bust is characteristic of this industry. There is an opportunity here, and I suspect there would be a lot of jobs associated with a real comprehensive public review for those that

were looking for work, so what better time to do this.

I heard that there’s an opportunity to do it right versus quickly. To ask the question, is fracking right for the NWT, and if so, how? That’s what we’re talking about here today.

The concern for local business because of this lull, again, this is just a fact of life in this industry, but again, my response to that is: What about concern for the public generally? We’re hearing from the public. I hope I outlined in all the whereases that we developed here, we made clear that there is concern out there.

We know that these developments might be in one region right now, but clearly it’s very likely to be occurring in other regions, the fracking activity, and impacts will also be felt both upstream and downstream. Input from all residents should, therefore, be welcomed. Certainly, the claims that there is no evidence of some case of impacts needs to be publicly evaluated, and that’s what this motion is about.

I heard from a couple of Members, including the Premier, that there is a concern about people working there and that we need an economy. Well, our residents actually have many ideas about an economic path on which we can move forward to address that need, which is well recognized and which I support in ways, as I mentioned in my statement, that doesn’t have big impacts on other people, their health, their land and so on.

It would halt industry for years to come. Well, how have so many other jurisdictions managed to consult with their people, and we have a parallel situation with our neighbour right next to us. They’re doing a very admirable, comprehensive, public process. I do not understand the reluctance to do this at all.

So this is basically – and again, I don’t want to stress that we have the two-year window to do this – a motion to hear the voice of our public. We are calling for a role in our design for exploitation of resources. This consultation would be comprehensive and include all perspectives; business would not be excluded, industry would not be excluded. This would include all perspectives and respond to any concerns brought forward.

In other jurisdictions the government plays a real role in responsibly calling for public input. Without support for this motion, it is clear that residents will have to seek a response solely through the land and water boards, and if so, so be it. Again, I look to other governments and the examples they set, the Yukon and so on.

So I do urge Members to support this and respect the public’s desire to be heard. With that, I am going to stop and ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Speaker. Thank you again for this opportunity.

Thanks to my colleagues for all those points they brought forward.